Mustard v Flower & Ors

Mustard v Flower & Ors

Permission to amend the Defence to plead fundamental dishonesty was refused because the amendment was unnecessary, had no real prospect of success on current evidence, and would prejudice the claimant. The defendant may still apply under section 57 at trial if warranted. The claimant's application to rely on amended medical reports referencing DTI neuroimaging analysis by Professor Sharp was refused as it breached a prior order excluding such analysis.

Parties
Claimant: Samantha Mustard; First Defendant: Jamie Flower; Second Defendant: Stephen Flower; Third Defendant: Direct Line Insurance
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Case Management Conference (ccmc) Application to Amend Defence
Outcome
Permission to amend Defence to plead fundamental dishonesty refused; permission to rely on amended medical reports referencing DTI neuroimaging analysis refused.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Fundamental Dishonesty, Section 57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, Expert Evidence, Costs
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Amendment of Pleadings Fundamental Dishonesty Section 57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 Expert Evidence Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samantha Mustard

Claimant

Jamie Flower

First Defendant

Stephen Flower

Second Defendant

Direct Line Insurance

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident / Case Management Conference (ccmc) Application to Amend Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to amend the Defence to plead fundamental dishonesty under section 57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015
  2. 2 Whether the claimant should be permitted to rely on amended medical reports commenting on DTI neuroimaging

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to amend the Defence to plead fundamental dishonesty was refused because the amendment was unnecessary, had no real prospect of success on current evidence, and would prejudice the claimant. The defendant may still apply under section 57 at trial if warranted. The claimant's application to rely on amended medical reports referencing DTI neuroimaging analysis by Professor Sharp was refused as it breached a prior order excluding such analysis.

Court Disposition

Permission to amend Defence to plead fundamental dishonesty refused; permission to rely on amended medical reports referencing DTI neuroimaging analysis refused.

Orders

  • Permission to amend Defence to plead fundamental dishonesty refused.
  • Permission to rely on amended medical reports referencing DTI neuroimaging analysis refused.